Jump to content
The World News Media

Finnish author looks to fill the 20-year chronology gap


JW Insider

Recommended Posts

  • Member
4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

new king, who has been unknown

 

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

he was unpopular during his lifetime because of his religious diversity.

Just a few words of review on these two statements he gave. “Neb V” is unknown to world history, but it was also apparently unknown to biblical writers who were “inspired” by God to record significant events. Let’s put it this way; if “Neb V” is not recorded in the Bible, then it is completely irrelevant to “biblical chronology,” to 607 BCE and to 1914 CE.

The second thing concerns the religious feelings aka diversity of "Neb V". How does Mansikka know what religious feelings the unknown king had? On the basis of what "records" did he come up with such an idea, when there is no record of "Neb V", according to Mansikka.  Apparently he said: Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background? Yes it is. Here he speaking about king A-M (mentioned in Bible and secular history as real person) and attributes to him such a quality, which he passes on to his own fictional king.

There is much more in his writings that looks as dilettantism:  

The author began researching the history of eclipses recorded in history and their timing in the course of history in the winter of 2017. 

Already at the beginning of this study, in January 2017, it was clear that in June 763 BC.....

What is significance of  "winter 2017" and "January 2017"?  When winter started? In winter 2017 or in January 2017? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 4.9k
  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep? Sometimes I wonder if you are not an alien. Well, now seriously, I just wanted to tell you that all this information is appreciated. It

Finally we get into discussion of the deep questions of life. One verse I will never apply to JWI is that of the lazy man turning on his bed like a door on its hinge.

If anyone got through all that reading, they surely won't mind indulging me in a little story about a girl who had trouble sleeping, so she kept a "sleep diary" for a few months. I think that a few he

Posted Images

  • Member
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

“Neb V” is unknown to world history, but it was also apparently unknown to biblical writers who were “inspired” by God to record significant events.

I think I see what you are saying. That if Jehovah thought it was important for us to know for sure that we were supposed to start this date counting of "7 times," and turn those 7 times into 2,520 years from 607 BCE, then Jehovah would have given us exactly enough information to count back from the first year Cyrus, and forward from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar without guessing.

And 2 Tim 3:16 would have been changed to say:

All scripture is inspired of God . . . that the man of God may be almost fully equipped, so that all he will still need is a working knowledge of how Greek Olympiads were tied to BCE dates through ancient king lists, and how Neo-Babylonian chronology can be tied to BCE dates through ancient king lists and validated with observations through astronomy.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

How does Mansikka know what religious feelings the unknown king had? On the basis of what "records" did he come up with such an idea, when there is no record of "Neb V", according to Mansikka.  Apparently he said: Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background?

A little further he at least explains how he manages this apparent total lack of evidence and information. He says that Amel-Marduk is the one who was nice to KIng Jehoiachin:

*** nwt 2 Kings 25:27-30 ***
And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah from prison. 28 He spoke kindly with him and put his throne higher than the thrones of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So Je·hoiʹa·chin took off his prison garments, and he regularly ate before him all the days of his life. 30 A regular allowance of food was given him from the king, day after day, all the days of his life.

So this Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) was nice to a Jewish king, therefore he was unpopular, therefore he he had to change his name to Nebuchadnezzar to be popular again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Just a few words of review on these two statements he gave. “Neb V” is unknown to world history, but it was also apparently unknown to biblical writers

One of the most obvious examples of circular reasoning shown by Pekka Mansikka is this:

  • Mansikka claims that this otherwise unknown entity, "Neb. V" must have really existed and reigned for nearly 20 years.  
  • So we ask of Mansikka: But if he really existed, then why does all the evidence point away from the existence of this otherwise unknown king? What about all that eclipse evidence that shows that no king named Neb existed at this time?
  • Mansikka answers, that it must still be true, because we can't trust their own evidence, because they didn't know about "Neb. V."

I know that this will probably sound like a joke, that I must be making this up to make fun of him. But here's what he says:

https://journal.pm-netti.com/lunar-eclipses-of-the-babylonian-astrologers.html

 The concluding paragraph says it all, emphasis mine:

Result

From the above, it can be easily concluded that the lunar eclipses recorded by ancient Babylonian astrologers are largely unworthy for New Babylon and earlier. The reason for this is that these eclipses were written down around the 200th [sic] century BC, and their authors had incomplete knowledge of Babylonian history. They knew nothing of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar V.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So this Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) was nice to a Jewish king, therefore he was unpopular, therefore he he had to change his name to Nebuchadnezzar to be popular again.

Yes, it is possible that he came up with the idea. In the first version, he added 20 years to Nabonidus. In this second version, he came up with a new solution. Extend the reign of E-M by changing its name to "Neb V". But, by changing own name, has the E-V alias "Neb V" also changed his tolerant attitude towards other religions? 

To be popular, king don't need to change own name, but to change own behavior. In this case, to start persecuting Jews and everyone else who is not at the will of the "populists" who advocate authoritarian populism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

A modern parallel of current events with a humorous break from Mansikka's book.

Impeachment!

Evil-Merodach betrayed the state and the people. In order to circumvent the decision of the Babylonian Senate, which forbade him to run for king again, E-V changed his name, thus circumventing the administrative ban and defeating the opponent in the elections. :)))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

The rest of this might be boring 😊 but just to be thorough, we should look at the rest of his book:

We left off above on page 9, where Mansikka reviews his own studies that would put a solar eclipse dated to the 9th year of Ashur-Dan on June 809 BCE instead of June 763 BCE.

The timing of this eclipse opened the door to a considerable extension of the chronology also on an archaeological basis and not solely on the basis of Israeli history.

Somehow, he thinks that identifying an eclipse usually associated with 763 but which could have referred to one 46 years earlier will change Nebuchadnezzar's reign, because he wants a 46 year difference in Assyrian history to negates all the many eclipses and planetary observations recorded from Neo-Babylonian history (where the Watchtower Society requires an unrelated 20 year extension).

In his review of his own research, Mansikka's then goes on to discuss Esarhaddon's reign from 100 years later than Ashur-Dan.

Timing of Esarhaddon's reign

In early March 2017, more than a month after the start of the study, a translation by Professor Smith of the cuneiform of the Esarhaddon Chronicle was found.2 On this basis, already at that early stage, was applied in 704 BC October eclipse to the 1st year of Esarhaddon. The new chronology clearly began to take shape.

The footnote/reference #2 is to the book which contains the outdated Nabonidus theory. So it refers to that book, pages 16 and 19-23. I will not get into the convoluted reasoning from that book, but the basic idea is take advantage of differences of opinion about a specific translation, which may refer to either a solar or lunar eclipse in the first year of Esarhaddon. In addition there is evidence of either a lunar or solar eclipse related to Esarhaddon's campaign in Egypt, which he ties to years 10 to 12. Mansikka believes we should look for either lunar or solar eclipses from 700 BCE to 681 BCE for a 10th-12th year of Esarhaddon that might also end up allowing a match for the lunar or solar eclipse in the first year of Esarhaddon.

The date of Esarhaddon’s reign, already outlined at the beginning of that dissertation, also showed the need for a strong extension of the chronology. In the winter of 2020, it was seen necessary to postpone Esarhaddon's reign for another year.3 Thereafter, the need to extend the chronology after Esarhaddon is 25 years.

Mansikka's goal, apparently, is to show that If a person can take all these poorly defined eclipses seriously enough to pinpoint to a specific year that is different from the generally accepted dating of those years, then Mansikka can somehow convince readers that we should not take seriously the very well-defined eclipses of the Neo-Babylonian period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Mansikka next goes on to discuss (in a few sentences) the reign of Pul and Tiglath-Pileser as it relates to King Menahem of Israel.

King Pul of Assyria

When the year 809 BC was applied Ashur-Dan III’s reign, it also paved the way for a new interpretation of the reigns of the Assyrian kings in the 7th century BC. The history of Israel tells of this activity of Pul, the king of Assyria in question:

“King Pul of Assyria came to the land, and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver. . . . And Menahem gathered silver out of Israel. . . and gave it to the king of Assyria.”4

Assyriologists have found confirmations for this event. Tiglath-Pileser III boasts of inheriting taxes from King Menahem of Israel. However, according to biblical chronology, Menaheim's reign ended as early as 780 BC. about. The 18-year reign – 12 – of Tiglath-Pileser III did not go so far back in time. Thus, this paved the way - in the early stages of the study in the winter of 2017 - for the reign of King Pul, or Pulu, of the Assyrian, which lasted about 18 years before the reign of Tiglat-Pileser III began.

This is just another reflection of Mansikka trying to improve on the more flexible admission of the INSIGHT book:

*** INSIGHT-2 p. 1102 Tiglath-pileser (III) ***
In ancient Assyrian records Tiglath-pileser III is assigned a reign of 18 years. Biblical references, however, seem to indicate that his kingship was of longer duration, inasmuch as references to him appear from the time of Menahem down to that of Hoshea. But the Hebrew Scriptures do not set forth all the details needed for one to state positively that the Assyrian records are in error in this case. This is so for several reasons: There is some uncertainty regarding the manner in which the reigns of the Israelite kings are to be fitted into a chronological framework. It is also worth noting that the period prior to the time generally assigned for the start of Tiglath-pileser’s reign is one of relative obscurity as far as the ancient records are concerned and is considered to have been a time of great decline for the Assyrians.

However, to accomplish this Mansikka apparently has to separate the reign of Pul from Tiglath-Pileser III, where INSIGHT would say:

*** INSIGHT-2 p. 1101 Tiglath-pileser (III) ***
During the reign of King Menahem of Israel (c. 790-781 B.C.E.), Tiglath-pileser III (Pul) advanced into Palestine, and Menahem sought the Assyrian’s favor by paying him tribute to the amount of “a thousand talents of silver” ($6,606,000 in current values).

Thus, Mansikka would double the 18-year reign of Tiglath-Pileser (archaeological dates: 745 to 727) by adding a twin 18-year reign of Pul, thus supposedly adding 20 years the WTS needs, plus another 18 years for Pul, so that 745+18+20=784 BCE to reach the WTS date range for Menahem.

Mansikka doesn't admit the circular reasoning going on here. So when he says, the 18-year reign did not go so far back in time "according to Biblical chronology" he doesn't mean that the "Bible" has anything to do with this. It just means that the WTS placed it farther back in time, and the extra 20 years that the WTS not only conflicts with Neo-Babylonian chronology, it also conflicts with Assyrian chronology.

Instead of admitting that this actually is further evidence against the "wishful thinking" chronology of the WTS, Mansikka takes the WTS position and assumes that all other chronologies must be off. Like the little drummer boy who marches to the beat of his own drum and assumes it was everyone else in the band who were wrong.

Of course, marching to the beat of your own drum produces ridicule by experts, and this feeds directly into the us/them psychology, or even persecution psychology, that some Witnesses thrive on. Like a good conspiracy theory, it's the very lack of evidence that is therefore turned into perceived "evidence." The ridicule over our belief without evidence (faith) supposedly makes us right, like a small David standing before a Goliath of evidence. We believe we must be right if the so-called experts all say something else. This is turned into a "Bible vs secular" argument, which some will turn into a "Jehovah vs Satan" argument. In reality it's nothing more than the "WTS vs Bible&archaeology." Ultimately, the WTS is accepted over the Bible&archaeology because . . . well, because FDS & 1914!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Mansikka's next point will go without much comment at all. It's about an eclipse from around 1360 BCE that somehow supports 809 vs 763 BCE and 809 vs 791 BCE. The difference is as much as 570 years here, more than half a millennium!

Finding the solar eclipse of Mursili II In July 2018, the solar eclipse scheduled for the 10th year of Mursili II's rule could be attributed to July 1360 BC. This finding was influenced by the information found in the Amarna letters that Suppiluliium I, the predecessor of Mursili II, died fairly soon after the death of an unnamed pharaoh.5 The relegation of Mursili II's reign to some extent also directly affects how the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria can be dated to the 6th and 7th centuries BC. This period of Mursili II's reign has also been found to support the year 809 BC. In the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III, King of Assyria. On the other hand, it does not support the assertion that the Assyrian solar eclipse took place in 791 BC.

This section has no footnotes or references that show the connection between 1360 BCE and 809 BCE.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

And from 1360 BCE, Mansikka finally jumps over to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, the Nebuchadnezzar II of Biblical fame:

Date of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign

In a more recent phase of the investigation, in the winter of 2020, progress was made in examining Babylonia’s business documents. The first of these was to identify overlaps during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II, Amel-Marduk, and Neriglissar, kings of Babylon.6 Since it is unlikely that they would have ruled in part at the same time, it was also simple to conclude that the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II must be postponed for at least two years. With this correction, the chronology has been extended by 2 years, with a further 23 years remaining.

6 P.Mansikka: NCUSE, Volume II, 2020, pp. 22- 24

I purchased the 2019 version of NCUSE, which covers this same material on different pages, but I do not have the 2020 version of the same book.  I assume (from the updates Pekka Mansikka has provided) that this is the same information covered later in the 2019 volume, and within pages 20-27 of NCUSE, Volume III based on the TOC he provided with the updates.  (Note that Mansikka labels these books Vol I, II and III, when they are apparently just 3 editions of the same book, re-ordering the pages, and replacing obsolete material with new material.)

The very convoluted overview of that material in the last two sentences in the above quote are not presented any clearer in the NCUSE material ("Volume I"), although that idea covers several pages. Perhaps when and if I purchase "Volume III" I can do a better job on this.

For now however I can see that he has merely ended up with the same mistakes that Furuli presented. If one looks closely at how this material was originally presented, they would be rightfully accused of scholastic dishonesty. It is possible that Furuli merely copied from some source, which means he was only passing along information that came from a very dishonest and hypocritical source. I believe that Mansikka is only passing along information from Furuli here, so that I cannot blame Mansikka as being the original dishonest and hypocritical source here.

 He probably doesn't realize he is taking some of the blame for the dishonesty himself, by claiming he investigated (in the winter of his dis-contents) and examined Babylonia's business documents. The "holy grail" of these business documents is to try to find some inconsistency or anomaly that can overturn the transitions between regnal years, the ordered timeline, and therefore the chronology. Even though it's still probably less than half of the 50,000 business documents that have been fully published, it's likely that all of them have been scanned by archaeologists for the anomalies, because these always get the most attention, and could make any archaeologist famous for being the one to find real evidence that could overthrow a long-established chronology.

But he, too, (as of 2019, at least) has succumbed to the pretense that such anomalies exist, and that an anomaly of only a few days difference can somehow be blown up into adding 20 years to the timeline and chronology.

I'll get to the specifics, as soon as I can find out whether any of the 2020 material was supposed to make any of my 2019 Mansikka material obsolete.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

(Note that Mansikka labels these books Vol I, II and III, when they are apparently just 3 editions of the same book, re-ordering the pages, and replacing obsolete material with new material.)

This is funny. 

6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

6 P.Mansikka: NCUSE, Volume II, 2020, pp. 22- 24

And this is more funny. 

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, marching to the beat of your own drum produces ridicule by experts, and this feeds directly into the us/them psychology, or even persecution psychology, that some Witnesses thrive on. Like a good conspiracy theory, it's the very lack of evidence that is therefore turned into perceived "evidence." The ridicule over our belief without evidence (faith) supposedly makes us right, like a small David standing before a Goliath of evidence. We believe we must be right if the so-called experts all say something else. This is turned into a "Bible vs secular" argument, which some will turn into a "Jehovah vs Satan" argument. In reality it's nothing more than the "WTS vs Bible&archaeology." Ultimately, the WTS is accepted over the Bible&archaeology because . . . well, because FDS & 1914!

I recently heard a good observation about this issue, on video. Namely, every thought uttered, that calls into question the established official doctrine of the WTS, every uttered question that opens a dilemma about the doctrine or the dilemma about the accuracy of a particular JW statement and written article, JW members consider it a danger to their faith, temptation or spirituality test, and even as prophesied persecution and devil's attack.

So, any questioning, critical thinking and challenge of existing (or former) religious teaching will cause deep unrest among most JW members. In both cases, when something like this comes from outside, from other people, and also when it occurs in the person himself. 

It is quite demanding to follow such topics that are open on the Forum, at least as far as I am concerned :). About 607 BCE, chronology, history, astronomy and much more. There is a lot of text to read, and it requires a lot of prior knowledge and knowledge of many things.

During my process of leaving JW, I checked the statements of others who had become ex-JW before me. Regarding quoting other people’s quotations from books or articles that were supposed to support the WTS position and strengthen the faith of the members - as/for secular archaeology, literature, and scholars ostensibly support them. In two, three of those examples i recognized, saw that what you, i think, called in other places, intellectual dishonesty. 

So this, if you (I or anybody else) remain confident that the authors of the article in the WTS have read everything well and concluded correctly about the text and the topic then everything is fine. But that “faith in God, in people, in the Organization” can put to the test, for whatever reason that can be the trigger. But, above all and everything, there must always be what is called “truth and honesty,” no matter how much something else originally initiated the processes of “awakening”.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

6 P.Mansikka: NCUSE, Volume II, 2020, pp. 22- 24

And this is more funny. 

True. It's OK for a scholar to depend on his own prior work, especially if that work has been reviewed and has withstood criticism. But this entire chapter was only sourced from his own previous works. Even works containing ideas he currently rejects. Here are the sources for this entire section:

image.png

And the only exception is where he quoted the Bible in footnote #4. And here he rejects the INSIGHT book which identifies Pul as Tiglath-Pileser III.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • It appears to me that this is a key aspect of the 2030 initiative ideology. While the Rothschilds were indeed influential individuals who were able to sway governments, much like present-day billionaires, the true impetus for change stems from the omnipotent forces (Satan) shaping our world. In this case, there is a false God of this world. However, what drives action within a political framework? Power! What is unfolding before our eyes in today's world? The relentless struggle for power. The overwhelming tide of people rising. We cannot underestimate the direct and sinister influence of Satan in all of this. However, it is up to individuals to decide how they choose to worship God. Satanism, as a form of religion, cannot be regarded as a true religion. Consequently, just as ancient practices of child sacrifice had a place in God's world, such sacrifices would never be accepted by the True God of our universe. Despite the promising 2030 initiative for those involved, it is unfortunately disintegrating due to the actions of certain individuals in positions of authority. A recent incident serves as a glaring example, involving a conflict between peaceful Muslims and a Jewish representative that unfolded just this week. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/11/us-delegation-saudi-arabia-kippah?ref=upstract.com Saudi Arabia was among the countries that agreed to the initiative signed by approximately 179 nations in or around 1994. However, this initiative is now being undermined by the devil himself, who is sowing discord among the delegates due to the ongoing Jewish-Hamas (Palestine) conflict. Fostering antisemitism. What kind of sacrifice does Satan accept with the death of babies and children in places like Gaza, Ukraine, and other conflicts around the world, whether in the past or present, that God wouldn't? Whatever personal experiences we may have had with well-known individuals, true Christians understand that current events were foretold long ago, and nothing can prevent them from unfolding. What we are witnessing is the result of Satan's wrath upon humanity, as was predicted. A true religion will not involve itself in the politics of this world, as it is aware of the many detrimental factors associated with such engagement. It understands the true intentions of Satan for this world and wisely chooses to stay unaffected by them.
    • This idea that Satan can put Jews in power implies that God doesn't want Jews in power. But that would also imply that God only wants "Christians" including Hitler, Biden, Pol Pot, Chiang Kai-Shek, etc. 
    • @Mic Drop, I don't buy it. I watched the movie. It has all the hallmarks of the anti-semitic tropes that began to rise precipitously on social media during the last few years - pre-current-Gaza-war. And it has similarities to the same anti-semitic tropes that began to rise in Europe in the 900's to 1100's. It was back in the 500s AD/CE that many Khazars failed to take or keep land they fought for around what's now Ukraine and southern Russia. Khazars with a view to regaining power were still being driven out into the 900's. And therefore they migrated to what's now called Eastern Europe. It's also true that many of their groups converted to Judaism after settling in Eastern Europe. It's possibly also true that they could be hired as mercenaries even after their own designs on empire had dwindled.  But I think the film takes advantage of the fact that so few historical records have ever been considered reliable by the West when it comes to these regions. So it's easy to fill the vacuum with some very old antisemitic claims, fables, rumors, etc..  The mention of Eisenhower in the movie was kind of a giveaway, too. It's like, Oh NO! The United States had a Jew in power once. How on earth could THAT have happened? Could it be . . . SATAN??" Trying to tie a connection back to Babylonian Child Sacrifice Black Magick, Secret Satanism, and Baal worship has long been a trope for those who need to think that no Jews like the Rothschilds and Eisenhowers (????) etc would not have been able to get into power in otherwise "Christian" nations without help from Satan.    Does child sacrifice actually work to gain power?? Does drinking blood? Does pedophilia??? (also mentioned in the movie) Yes, it's an evil world and many people have evil ideologies based on greed and lust and ego. But how exactly does child sacrifice or pedophilia or drinking blood produce a more powerful nation or cabal of some kind? To me that's a giveaway that the authors know that the appeal will be to people who don't really care about actual historical evidence. Also, the author(s) of the video proved that they have not done much homework, but are just trying to fill that supposed knowledge gap by grasping at old paranoid and prejudicial premises. (BTW, my mother and grandmother, in 1941 and 1942, sat next to Dwight Eisenhower's mother at an assembly of Jehovah's Witnesses. The Eisenhower family had been involved in a couple of "Christian" religions and a couple of them associated with IBSA and JWs for many years.)
  • Members

  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      158.9k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,669
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Miracle Pete
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.